DOI: 10.1002/mar.

21390

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The mitigating effect of matching regulatory focus with

arousal‐inducing stimuli in service failure situations

Gopal Das1 | Rajat Roy2 | Mark T. Spence3

1
Indian Institute of Management Bangalore,
Bangalore, India
2
Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia
3
Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia
Correspondence
Gopal Das, Indian Institute of Management
Bangalore, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore,
Karnataka 560076, India.
Email: gopal.das@iimb.ac.in
Abstract
Service failures are pivotal touchpoints that can reduce customer satisfaction, en-
courage negative word‐of‐mouth, and ultimately impact a firm's market share. We
advance a novel perspective that after a service failure occurs, matching incidental
arousal‐inducing stimuli to one's regulatory orientation can make the negative ex-
perience stemming from the service failure less deleterious. In three experiments
(two stock out scenarios and one involving a rude salesperson), after a service
failure, promotion‐focused and prevention‐focused individuals were exposed to high
versus low arousal‐inducing stimuli. Three approaches available to retailers were
used to manipulate arousal levels: background pictures (Study 1), colors (Study 2),
and music (Study 3). When high (low) incidental arousal‐inducing stimuli were pre-
sented to those with a promotion (prevention) focus, this raised satisfaction, loyalty,
and referral for brands compared to when promotion (prevention)‐focused in-
dividuals were exposed to low (high) arousal‐inducing stimuli. Changes in self‐rated
arousal and affect valence levels (arousal and valence levels were measured after
the service failure and then after exposure to the incidental arousal‐inducing stimuli)
mediated the effect on these consumer behaviors. These insights extend theory by
considering the combined effect of regulatory focus and affect. They also have
practical relevance.

KEYWORDS

arousal, prevention focus, promotion focus, service failure, valence

1 | INTRODUCTION
Imagine while browsing for a pair of headphones in a retail store, you
experience a service failure incidence, such as a stock out situation or
a salesperson that ignores your request for product‐related assis-
tance. How do you react to these service failure scenarios? Con-
sumers react negatively to service failures (e.g., Bolton &
Mattila, 2015; Fitzsimons, 2000; Kim & Lennon, 2011; Schaefers &
Schamari, 2016), the consequences of which can be substantial.
Service failures have been shown to hurt retailer's brand image, in-
crease expectations of future stock‐outs, reduce customer satisfac-
tion, increase the probability that the shopper will switch to a
competitor, and encourage negative word‐of‐mouth (Gaur & Park,
2007; Kim & Lennon, 2011). Ultimately, service failures have an ad-
verse impact on market share (Anderson, Fitzsimons, & Simester,
2006; Kim & Lennon, 2011).
Prior research suggests strategies that a retailer can adopt to
mitigate the negative effects of a service failure. For example, re-
tailers can provide financial compensation (Basso & Pizzutti, 2016),
blame the supplier (Anderson et al., 2006), suggest a replacement
product (Breugelmans, Campo, & Gijsbrechts, 2006), and even im-
prove responses to failures through corporate social responsibility
(Bolton & Mattila, 2015). However, these research efforts have not
examined changes in the negative affective state that is likely to be
triggered by a service failure. Highly charged negative emotional
states can motivate retaliatory responses from consumers (Schaefers

Psychology & Marketing. 2020;1–13. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC | 1

2 |
& Schamari, 2016). Building on existing research of consumer moti-
vation and affect regulation (Andrade, 2005; Di Muro & Murray,
2012; Gross, 1998), the present study proposes a novel way to
dampen the adverse reactions one is likely to have from a service
failure; specifically, by matching consumer motivations (namely, their
regulatory focus orientation) with incidental arousal‐inducing stimuli.
Higgins (1997) proposed that self‐regulation involves two sepa-
rate systems, a promotion system and prevention system. Promotion‐
focused individuals emphasize needs for advancement while pursuing
goals and deploy eagerness strategies to regulate their behavior. In
contrast, prevention‐focused people incline toward security needs
and deploy vigilance strategies to regulate their behavior. In situa-
tions when an individual's strategy of goal pursuit (eagerness vs.
vigilance) fits with their regulatory focus (promotion focus vs. pre-
vention focus), they experience regulatory fit, a “feeling right” (Hig-
gins, Idson, Freitas, Spiegel, & Molden, 2003; Lee & Aaker, 2004).
Prior research shows that regulatory fit influences consumers' eva-
luations and judgments in a variety of domains, including product and
shopping decisions (Avnet & Higgins, 2003), social policies (Cesario,
Grant, & Higgins, 2004), health‐related issues (Rothman, Bartels,
Wlaschin, & Salovey, 2006), and reactions to advertisements (Pierro
et al., 2013). For example, in a product persuasion context, matching
promotion (prevention) focus with information type (concrete vs.
abstract) enhanced persuasion (Avnet & Higgins, 2003). The current
study broadens our understanding of factors driving a fit effect—in
this case—matching a specific regulatory focus with high versus low
arousal‐inducing stimuli that is incidental to a service failure
experience.
Prior research examining how consumers react to the adverse
emotions stemming from service failures is equivocal. For example,
Smith and Bolton (2002) found that consumers who react to
service failures with negative emotions may be less satisfied with
service failure/recovery encounters; however, the adverse impact of
negative emotions were contingent on service type (e.g., significant
for hotels but not for restaurants). Andreassen (2000) reports a
nonsignificant impact of negative emotions on service recovery
across a range of services (e.g., fast food, banks, and car dealers). Past
research reports that in the context of hotels and internet service
providers, certain interventions (e.g., apology compared to financial
compensation) are more effective at reducing adverse reactions
(Basso & Pizzutti, 2016). Missing from the current discourse is how
differences in consumers regulatory orientation affect reactions to
service failures, such as their satisfaction levels. This study effort
demonstrates that matching promotion (prevention)‐focused in-
dividuals with high (low) arousal‐inducing stimuli dampens the ne-
gative affective state stemming from the service failure incident; this
is shown across three different service failure contexts. The arousal‐
inducing stimuli used pictures, colors, and music, which are simple yet
effective techniques that can be added to the existing portfolio of
strategies used by retailers to deal with service failures, such as
apologies, financial compensation, and replacing the product (Basso &
Pizzutti, 2016; Breugelmans et al., 2006). We therefore broaden the
toolkit available to retailers to address service failures.
DAS ET AL.
The regulatory focus literature has examined a wide range of
stimuli (such as product feature and message framing) to induce fit, a
“feeling right” experience (Chernev, 2004; Higgins et al., 2003; Lee &
Aaker, 2004; Roy & Ng, 2012). The current research proposes an
additional way of inducing fit, that is, by matching one's regulatory
orientation with incidental arousal‐inducing stimuli. Considering the
moderating effect of incidental arousing‐inducing stimuli on the
regulatory focus orientations, consumer behavior link has not pre-
viously been considered, despite research showing that arousal levels
can affect shopping experiences (Di Muro & Murray, 2012; Fedor-
ikhin & Patrick, 2010), and this influence can be independent of mood
(Kim, Park, & Schwarz, 2010). Further, the two mediators studied in
this research (i.e., changes in the levels of arousal and valence mea-
sured after the service failure and then after exposure to the arousal‐
inducing stimuli) provide a nuanced understanding of how consumers
react to service failures given different arousing‐inducing stimuli that
retailers can use to lessen the negative consequences.
In sum, the current research studies the effect of matching one's
regulatory orientation with incidental arousal‐inducing stimuli after a
service failure and shows that doing so can dampen the negative
effects on satisfaction, loyalty, and referrals. Three studies test three
different means to affect arousal and valence levels. The stimuli used
can be easily engaged by managers as part of retail atmospherics. To
achieve fit, some product or service contexts can induce a specific
regulatory orientation. For example, a designer garment shop or
luxury car showroom are likely to induce a promotion focus, while a
school uniform shop or hardware store are more likely to induce a
prevention focus. Prior research has also argued that managers can
infer a consumer's regulatory focus orientation from their customer
relationship management data (Das, 2016). Findings therefore pro-
vide practically relevant solutions to deal with service failures. The
approaches advanced here have not been theoretically proposed and
empirically tested before. Therefore, the contribution of this study is
twofold. First, the results of this study advance service failure lit-
erature (e.g., Bolton & Mattila, 2015; Schaefers & Schamari, 2016) by
showing that differences in consumer motivations can play an im-
portant role in mitigating service failure impacts. Second, the results
of this study contribute to regulatory focus literature (e.g., Higgins
et al., 2003; Lee & Aaker, 2004) by showing that matching consumer
motivation with arousal‐inducing stimuli mitigates the negative
consequences of service failures. Further, the service failure and
consumer motivation literature have been extended by showing that
changes in self‐rated arousal and valence levels (preincidental vs.
postincidental arousal‐inducing stimuli) mediated this effect. The
mediating role of consumer affect has not been studied by prior
research in service failure and regulatory focus literature. From a
practical standpoint, we broaden the number of ways retailers can
address service failures.
In the next section, we review literature pertaining to arousal,
affect, and regulatory focus. These research streams are then in-
tegrated to advance five hypotheses. Three laboratory experiments
are then presented to test the hypotheses. Studies 1 and 2 examine
reactions to a core service failure—a stock out situation. Stock out
DAS ET AL.
situations are the most frequently occurring service failures
(Breugelmans et al., 2006). Study 3 examines a procedural service
failure—reactions to an impolite salesperson. Incidental arousal‐
inducing stimuli are manipulated using means readily available to
retailers, namely background pictures (Study 1), colors (Study 2), and
music (Study 3). Then, we discuss our major findings, implications for
theory and practice, and finally limitations and directions for future
research.
2 | A R O U S A L LE VE L A S A CO M P O N E N T O F
AF FECT IVE EXPERIENCES
Two fundamental components of an affective experience are valence
and arousal. Psychologists argue that valence can range from feeling
pleasant to unpleasant, while arousal can range from feeling quiet to
active (Di Muro & Murray, 2012; Kuppens, Tuerlinckx, Russell, &
Barrett, 2013). Arousal is described as an affective dimension ranging
from sleepy to frantic excitement and is often measured through
individual self‐report (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). Supporting this
viewpoint, recent evidence describes arousal as a subjective experi-
ence of energy mobilization (Di Muro & Murray, 2012; Kaltcheva &
Weitz, 2006). This is in contrast to objective arousal which has been
defined as the release of energy collected in the tissues, and when
viewed this way, is measured using pulse rate and systolic blood
pressure (Di Muro & Murray, 2012). For the current study, we em-
brace subjective arousal.
Arousal can be subjectively experienced as both activating (e.g.,
fast music) and deactivating (e.g., soothing music) by stimuli in the
environment (Noseworthy, Di Muro, & Murray, 2014). Both valence
and arousal dimensions of affective experiences have implications for
judgment and decision making (Kuppens, Champagne, & Tuer-
linckx, 2012; Kuppens et al., 2013). According to scholars, arousal
covaries positively with valence, such that people in high arousal
states demonstrate a general preference for positive affect (Andrade,
2005; Kim et al., 2010). Kuppens et al. (2013) posit that as arousal
changes from low to high, the accompanying level of affect also in-
creases. While arousal is a critical component of affect, prior research
shows that its impact on consumers' evaluations can be independent
of an individual's mood (Fedorikhin & Patrick, 2010; Gorn, Pham, &
Sin, 2001).
3 | SH OPPIN G SITU ATIONS AFFE CT
AROUSA L LEVE LS
According to Mehrabian and Russell's (1974) seminal paper on
stimulus–organism–response paradigm, consumers are exposed and
react to everyday physical shopping environment stimuli, such as color,
sound, temperature, and texture. These stimuli influence internal states
such as pleasure and arousal. Cues like warm colors (Kueller &
Mikellides, 1993; Valdez & Mehrabian, 1994), fast tempo music
(Holbrook & Gardner, 1993), ambient scent (Di Muro & Murray, 2012),
| 3
and advertising images (Chowdhury, Douglas Olsen, & Pracejus, 2008)
can all influence arousal levels in a shopping environment.
Researchers have reported beneficial effects of high levels of
pleasure and arousal in shopping environments. For example, studies
have shown that high levels of pleasure and arousal in the retail
environment enhance approach behaviors like the desire to shop
(Eroglu, Machleit, & Davis, 2003; Menon & Kahn, 2002), purchase
intentions (Babin & Babin, 2001; Fiore, Jin, & Kim, 2005), and sa-
tisfaction (Eroglu et al., 2003). Similarly, arousal induced by ambient
perfume or color can influence brand attitude and payment decisions
(Bagchi & Cheema, 2013; Madzharov, Block, & Morrin, 2015).
Recent evidence shows that consumer motivations interact with
arousal levels to affect consumer decisions, albeit the studies considered
motivations different than regulatory orientation (Kaltcheva &
Weitz, 2006). For example, high arousal increases intention to visit a shop
when consumers have a recreation motivation. On the other hand, high
arousal has a negative impact on shopping behavior for task‐oriented
consumers (Kaltcheva & Weitz, 2006). A number of studies argue that
arousal itself has a motivating influence (Andrade, 2005; Kim et al., 2010;
Raghunathan, Pham, & Corfman, 2006). For example, Kim et al. (2010)
show that arousal level can influence product choices, while controlling
for affect. The current study considers the moderating effect of arousal‐
inducing stimuli on the regulatory orientation → consumer behavior link,
starting with the assumption that the two different regulatory orienta-
tions have a natural inclination toward different arousal levels. The va-
lence of the arousal‐inducing stimuli will be held constant. Past evidence
shows that arousal levels are affected by one's personality as well as the
situation (Kuppens et al., 2012; Noseworthy et al., 2014).
4 | RE GU LAT O RY F O CUS AND AROUSAL ‐
TYPE INTERACTION
Regulatory focus theory proposes that people approach their goals
from two orthogonal motivational orientations—promotion or pre-
vention (Higgins, 1997). Promotion‐focused individuals are con-
cerned with growth and advancement and are sensitive to gains and
nongains in decision making, whereas prevention‐focused individuals
are concerned with responsibility and security needs in their lives
and thus respond to losses and nonlosses (Higgins, 2002; Pham &
Avnet, 2004). If one is promotion (prevention)‐oriented, they are
naturally inclined to pursue their ideal state of gains (vs. avoiding
losses). Past research shows that when those with a promotion
(prevention) focus achieve their desired ideal states, they experience
emotions like cheerfulness (vs. calmness; Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad,
2008; Higgins, 1997, 1998). Both cheerfulness and calmness have
positive valence but differ in their level of arousal, with cheerfulness
being a relatively more aroused state (Kim et al., 2010). Thus, we
advance that those with a promotion focus have a natural inclination
to prefer more aroused states relative to prevention‐focused in-
dividuals. Given that service failures are unwanted and often highly
charged—hence the negative consequences such as lower satisfac-
tion mentioned previously—we argue that incorporating in retail
4 |
atmospherics arousal‐inducing stimuli consistent with one's natural
arousal inclination can dampen the adverse reactions, thus leading to
relatively higher levels of satisfaction, loyalty and referrals. It is
therefore hypothesized that:
H1. In response to retail service failure, a promotion‐focused orientation
combined with a high incidental arousal‐inducing stimulus (vs. low
arousal‐inducing stimulus) will lead to relatively higher levels of (a)
satisfaction, (b) loyalty, and (c) referral for retailers.
H2. In response to retail service failure, a prevention‐focused orientation
combined with low incidental arousal‐inducing stimulus (vs. high
arousal‐inducing stimulus) will lead to relatively higher levels of (a)
satisfaction, (b) loyalty, and (c) referral for retailers.
Service failures are likely to lead to a deviation from one's ideal
state for both promotion‐ and prevention‐focused individuals, hence
resulting in a negatively charged, aroused state. Promotion and
prevention individuals' preferences after incidences of service failure
would be to return to their natural arousal state (Scholer & Higgins,
2013), and possibly make attitudinal adjustments in response to this
aversive arousal state (Raju & Unnava, 2006). We propose that ex-
posure to incidental high versus low arousal stimuli provides an op-
portunity for promotion‐focused individuals to move toward an
arousal state they naturally prefer, that is, excitement (positively
valence, high arousal) versus calmness (positively valence, low
arousal), the latter of which would be preferred by those with a
prevention focus. To achieve this, both promotion‐ and prevention‐
focused individuals would need to move away from the negative
affective state caused by the service failure to a relatively more
positive affective state, while retaining their general preference for
high and low arousal level. This follows from the affect literature that
a change in arousal level is normally accompanied by change in affect
level (Kuppens et al., 2013). It is therefore expected that matching
one's regulatory focus with different levels of incidental arousal‐
inducing stimuli (holding the valence of the stimuli constant) will
trigger a change in both valence and arousal, which, in turn, will
dampen the discomfort arising from the service failure. This is con-
sistent with findings pertaining to regulatory fit. Fit has been shown
to encourage positive attitudes and behaviors, even in response to
negative events (Roy & Chatterjee, 2011); and that the effect of fit on
consumers' evaluations and judgments is mediated by a feeling right
experience (Lee & Aaker, 2004)—albeit both studies used message
framing to induce fit. In our case, we expect that changes in arousal
and valence levels (pre‐ vs. post‐arousal‐inducing stimulus) will
mediate the interactive effects of regulatory orientation and arousal‐
inducing stimuli on consumer responses, namely satisfaction, loyalty,
and referrals. Based on the above we propose:
H3. In response to high (vs. low) arousal‐inducing stimuli (valence held
constant), promotion‐focused individuals initial level of valence
and arousal resulting from the service failure experience will
change, such that (a) promotion‐focused individuals will move
DAS ET AL.
toward a more positive valence state; and (b) a state of high
arousal that matches their regulatory orientation.
H4. In response to low (vs. high) arousal‐inducing stimuli (valence held
constant), prevention‐focused individuals initial level of valence
and arousal resulting from the service failure experience will
change, such that (a) prevention‐focused individuals will move
toward a more positive valence state; and (b) a state of low
arousal that matches their regulatory orientation.
H5a. Changes in arousal levels will mediate the relationship between one's
regulatory focus orientation and satisfaction, loyalty, and referrals.
H5b. Changes in valence levels will mediate the relationship between one's
regulatory focus orientation and satisfaction, loyalty, and referrals.
The above hypotheses are tested with three laboratory experi-
ments conducted across different service failure scenarios with dif-
ferent arousal‐inducing stimuli.
5 | STUDY 1
Study 1 uses a stock out scenario to test H1 and H2. Stock‐outs have
been shown to hurt retailers' brand image, increase expectations of
future stock‐outs, reduce customer satisfaction, increase the prob-
ability that the shopper will switch to a competitor, and reduce po-
sitive word‐of‐mouth (Fitzsimons, 2000; Gaur & Park, 2007; Kim &
Lennon, 2011; Schary & Christopher, 1979).
5.1 | Participants and design
Two hundred students from a large university (43% females; Mage =
24 years) participated in Study 1 in exchange for partial course
credit. Participants were randomly allocated to four conditions in a 2
(regulatory focus: promotion vs. prevention) × 2 (arousal‐inducing
stimuli: high vs. low) between‐subjects design.
Upon arrival at the laboratory, each participant was allocated a
cubicle equipped with a personal computer. Participants were then
informed that they will take part in two ostensibly unrelated studies.
The first study was related to the regulation focus manipulation,
which was based on the procedure used by Pham and Avnet (2004).
Participants were primed with one of two regulatory focus manip-
ulations. To stimulate a promotion focus, participants were asked to
think about their “current hopes and aspirations,” and after doing so,
to write down two of them. In the prevention‐focus condition, par-
ticipants were asked to think about their “duties, obligations, and
responsibilities,” and then to write down two of them. After the
prime, participants answered a manipulation check question used in
prior research (Chatterjee, Roy, & Malshe, 2011; Keller, 2006): What
is more important for you to do? Responses were provided on a 1
(“something I ought to”) to 7 (“something I want to”) scale.
DAS ET AL. | 5

Next, participants were told that they would be completing an
unrelated study about online shopping. Participants were asked to
imagine themselves shopping online for a pair of headphones from a
fictitious company called “ABC” retailer. The store was given a fic-
titious name to remove the possibility of past experiences with the
store, which can temper transaction‐specific reactions (Smith &
Bolton, 2002). The scenario indicated that after browsing for a few
minutes, they found a pair of headphones they liked. However, when
they clicked to add the chosen headphones to the online shopping
cart, they got a stock out message informing them that the pair was
currently unavailable.
To manipulate incidental arousal levels (high vs. low), different
background images were used to display the stock out messages.
International Affective Picture System (IAPS) images were used (see
Appendix). Two pictures were drawn from the IAPS that were mat-
ched in valence but differed significantly in arousal level, based on
the IAPS ratings (Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1999). Consistent with
prior research, the respective pictures were presented to the parti-
cipants for 6 s (Noseworthy et al., 2014). After this, participants re-
ported their satisfaction (“How satisfied are you with your shopping
experience at the retail store?”), loyalty (“How likely are you to shop
at the retail store the next time you want to purchase earphones?”),
and referral (“How likely are you to refer the retail store to a friend or
colleague?”; Reichheld, 2003). Each response variable was measured
with single item on a 9‐point scale ranging from 1 = “Not at All
Satisfied/Likely” to 9 = “Extremely Satisfied/Likely” (Bergkvist &
Rossiter, 2007; Drolet & Morrison, 2001). Finally, as a manipulation
check, participants completed the Affect Grid (Russel, Weiss, &
Mendelsohn, 1989). The 9 × 9 Affect Grid is a widely used graphical
instrument that simultaneously measures valence (horizontal axis)
and arousal (vertical axis) with the endpoints 1 (low) and 9 (high) on
each dimension.
influence affect valence (M LA = 5.72 vs. MHA = 5.78, F[1,
196] = 0.08; p = .78). Similarly, the manipulation of regulatory
focus resulted in significant differences between the promotion
and prevention conditions (Mprom = 5.54 vs. M prev = 2.95, F[1,
196] = 200.31; p < .001) but did not influence valence (p > .05).
Further, none of the manipulation check items was influenced by
the two‐way interaction between the independent variables
(all p's > .5).
MANOVA was also used to test our key hypotheses. Findings
show that arousal manipulation has a significant effect on satisfaction
(MLA = 4.23 vs. MHA = 4.73, F[1, 198] = 10.76; p < .001), loyalty
(MLA = 4.04 vs. MHA = 4.52, F[1, 198] = 6.21; p < .05), and referral
(MLA = 3.90 vs. MHA = 4.26, F[1, 198] = 4.67; p < .05). We also found
that regulatory focus has a main effect on satisfaction (Mprev = 4.18
vs. Mprom = 4.78, F[1, 198] = 15.49; p < .001), loyalty (Mprev = 3.99 vs.
Mprom = 4.57, F[1, 198] = 9.07; p < .05), and referral (Mprev = 3.89;
Mprom = 4.27, F[1, 198] = 5.20; p < .05).
More importantly, findings support a significant interaction be-
tween regulatory focus and arousal‐inducing stimuli on the key de-
pendent variables (DVs): satisfaction (F [1, 196] = 342.11; p < .001),
loyalty (F[1, 196] = 163.20; p < .001), and referral (F[1,196] = 210.85;
p < .001). The means for the DVs appear in Table 1. Follow‐up con-
trast analyses supported the hypotheses for satisfaction (Mprom_-
high = 6.44 vs. Mprom_low = 3.15, t[193] = 14.95; p < .001;
Mprev_low = 5.34 vs. Mprev_high = 3.02, t[193]= −10.71; p < .001), loyalty
(Mprom_high = 6.04 vs. Mprom_low = 3.66, t[193] = 10.76; p < .001;
Mprev_low = 4.98 vs. Mprev_high = 3.00, t[193] = −7.27; p < .001), and re-
ferral (Mprom_high = 5.66 vs. Mprom_low = 2.89, t[193] = 11.48; p < .001;
Mprev_low = 4.92 vs. Mprev_high = 2.86, t[193] = −8.68; p < .001). These
results therefore support H1 and H2.
5.3 | Discussion

5.2 | Results
To verify that the manipulations were successful, we subjected
arousal level, valence, and the regulatory focus manipulation
checks to a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). The
regulatory focus and arousal stimuli used served as the in-
dependent variables. Findings show that as expected, IAPS ima-
ges produced a significant difference between arousal levels
(M LA = 4.69 vs. M HA = 6.11, F[1, 196] = 66.82; p < .001), but did not
Results from Study 1 support the hypotheses that after a service
failure, there will be higher levels of satisfaction, loyalty, and referrals
when promotion (prevention)‐focused individuals are matched with
high (low) arousal‐inducing stimuli relative to low (high) arousal sti-
muli. The induced regulatory fit thus helps to counteract negative
consumer responses to a stock out situation. In the next study, we
replicate this effect, albeit using a different product category and
different arousal manipulation. In addition, we introduce a control
condition for the arousal variable.

T A B L E 1 Dependent variables as a
Promotion Prevention
function of regulatory focus and arousal‐ Regulatory focus
inducing stimuli DV/arousal Low arousal High arousal Low arousal High arousal

Satisfaction 3.15 (1.08) 6.44 (1.26) 5.34 (1.06) 3.02 (0.89)

Loyalty 3.66 (1.07) 6.04 (1.41) 4.98 (1.52) 3.0 (1.38)

Referral 2.89 (1.0) 5.66 (1.39) 4.92 (1.34) 2.86 (0.93)

Note: Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.

6 |
6 | STUDY 2
In Study 2, incidental arousal was manipulated through different
background colors. In this case, a blue background was used to en-
courage low levels of arousal and red for high levels of arousal
(Bagchi & Cheema, 2013). A white background was also included to
establish a baseline condition against which the effect of arousal‐
inducing colors can be estimated. Color is a simple and practical
means by which a retailer can influence a consumer's arousal state
(Gorn, Chattopadhyay, Yi, & Dahl, 1997), both on‐ and off‐line. This
study also used a stock out scenario, albeit for a different product
category—mobile phones.
6.1 | Participants and design
Three hundred participants (45% females; Mage = 23 years) from a
large university participated in Study 2 in exchange for partial course
credit. They were randomly allocated within a 2 (regulatory focus:
promotion vs. prevention) × 3 color (white vs. red vs. blue) between‐
subjects full‐factorial design.
Upon arrival, each participant was allocated in a small cubicle
equipped with a personal computer. Participants were asked to
participate in two ostensibly unrelated studies. The study followed
the same regulatory focus priming procedure as in Study 1, followed
by the same manipulation check. Next, participants were told that
they would be completing an unrelated study about the purchase of a
mobile phone from “ABC” retailer. They were asked to imagine that
they were browsing at an online store for a mobile phone. After
browsing for a few minutes, they could select a mobile phone they
liked. While they were browsing, depending on their treatment
condition (i.e., white, red, or blue), the mobile phones appeared on a
different background colors. When they clicked to add the chosen
mobile phone to their shopping cart, they got a stock out message
informing them that the phone was currently unavailable. Then,
participants reported their satisfaction, loyalty, and referral using the
same scales from Study 1. Finally, like Study 1, participants reported
their valence and arousal levels on the Affect Grid (Russel
et al., 1989).
6.2 | Manipulation checks
MANOVA was used to check arousal, valence, and regulatory focus,
with the regulatory focus manipulation and color type as the in-
dependent variables. First, color influenced arousal level only (F[1,
294] = 10.87; p < .001); it did not influence valence (p > .05). Pairwise
comparison showed significant differences across colors. There were
significant differences between blue and red (Mblue = 3.53, vs.
Mred = 5.05, t[297] = −5.19; p < .001), red and white (Mred = 5.05 vs.
Mwhite = 4.16, t[297] = 3.04; p < .01), and blue and white (Mblue = 3.53
vs. Mwhite = 4.16, t[297] = −2.15; p < .05). Further, the regulatory focus
manipulation produced the expected differences between the
DAS ET AL.
promotion and prevention‐oriented conditions (Mprom = 5.35 vs.
Mprev = 3.14, F[1, 294] = 220.98; p < .001), but did not influence va-
lence (p > .05). Finally, manipulation checks for regulatory focus and
arousal were not affected by the two‐way interaction between the
independent variables (all p's > .05).
6.3 | Hypotheses tests
Hypotheses were tested using MANOVA with the three DVs and
manipulated regulatory focus and arousal‐inducing stimuli as the
independent variables. The main effects of regulatory focus on sa-
tisfaction (F[1, 294] = 7.30; p < .05), loyalty (F[1, 294] = 4.54; p < .05),
and referral (F[1, 294] = 10.44; p < .05) are significant. The main ef-
fects of arousal on satisfaction (F[1, 294] = 34.36; p < .001), loyalty
(F[1, 294] = 31.26; p < .001), and referral (F[1, 294] = 13.63; p < .001)
are also significant.
Results of MANOVA found that the interaction between reg-
ulatory focus and the arousal manipulation had a significant effect on
satisfaction (F[2, 294] = 133.84; p < .001). Promotion‐focused in-
dividuals provided higher satisfaction ratings in the high vs. low
arousal condition (Mpromo_red = 6.10 vs. Mpromo_blue = 3.0, t
[294] = 13.43; p < .001), and the high over the white control condition
(Mpromo_red = 6.10 vs. Mpromo_white = 3.16, t[294] = 12.73; p < .001). No
significant difference was observed between the low and control
condition (Mpromo_blue = 3.0 vs. Mpromo_white = 3.16). In the case of
prevention‐focused individuals, satisfaction ratings were higher in
low compared to the high arousal condition (Mprev_blue = 5.10 vs.
Mprev_red = 2.9, t[294] = −9.53; p < .001), and also for the low over the
white control condition (Mprev_blue = 5.10 vs. Mprev_white = 3.18, t
[294] = 8.31; p < .001). No significant difference was observed be-
tween the high and control condition (Mprev_red = 2.9 vs.
Mprev_white = 3.18).
Similar results were obtained for the DV loyalty (F[2,
294] = 103.86; p < .001). Promotion‐focused individuals provided
higher ratings in the high over low arousal condition (Mpromo_red =
5.68 vs. Mpromo_blue = 2.68, t[294] = 12.58; p < .001), and high over the
control condition (Mpromo_red = 5.68 vs. Mpromo_white = 2.88, t
[294] = 11.74; p < .001), but not between the low and control condi-
tions (Mpromo_blue = 2.68 vs. Mpromo_white = 2.88). For prevention‐
focused individuals, loyalty measures were higher for low over high
arousal (Mprev_blue = 4.62 vs. Mprev_red = 2.8, t[294] = −7.63; p < .001)
and low over control (Mprev_blue = 4.62 vs. Mprev_white = 2.94, t
[294] = 7.05; p < .001) conditions, but there was not a significant
difference between the high and control conditions (Mprev_red = 2.8 vs.
Mprev_white = 2.94).
The interaction between regulatory focus and the arousal ma-
nipulation for referral was also significant (F[2, 294] = 52.54;
p < .001). Promotion‐focused individuals provided higher ratings in
the high over low arousal (Mpromo_red = 5.08 vs. Mpromo_blue = 2.8, t
[294] = 8.73; p < .001) and high over the control conditions (Mpro-
mo_red = 5.08 vs. Mpromo_white = 2.94, t[294] = 8.20; p < .001), but did
not discriminate between low and control (Mpromo_blue = 2.8 vs.
DAS ET AL. | 7

Mpromo_white = 2.94). On the other hand, prevention‐focused in- 7 | STUDY 3

dividuals once again preferred the low over high (Mprev_blue = 4.02 vs.
Mprev_red = 2.56, t[294] = −5.59; p < .001) and low over control
(Mprev_blue = 4.02 vs. Mprev_white = 2.78, t[294] = 4.75; p < .001), but did
not report significant differences between high and control
(Mprev_red = 2.56 vs. Mprev_white = 2.78). Table 2 reports the cell means.
6.4 | Discussion
Results from our second experiment provided a more rigorous
test of H1 and H2 by using a different product category and
including a control condition. Once again, in support of H1
and H2, findings show that promotion‐focused individuals re-
ported higher satisfaction, loyalty, and referral when they were
exposed to the high versus low arousal‐inducing stimulus. They
also reported higher means on the three DVs when the high
arousal condition was compared to the control condition.
Promotion‐focused individuals did not distinguish between low
arousal and the control condition.
On the other hand, prevention‐focused individuals reported
higher satisfaction, loyalty, and referral in response to low over
high arousal stimuli as well as for the low compared to the control
condition. Mirroring their counterpart, they did not distinguish
between the high arousal and control condition. Based on our
findings, regulatory focus appears to act like a filter, yielding
benefits from arousal‐inducing stimuli, that is, consistent with the
arousal level that naturally aligns with their regulatory orienta-
tion. While an entirely different stimulus was used (background
color vs. message framing), these findings bear similarity to the
regulatory fit literature (Lee & Aaker, 2004; Wang & Lee, 2006).
Further, there was no difference in the DVs in the “nonfitting”
stimuli (e.g., between low arousal and control stimuli for
promotion‐focused individuals).
A few limitations may be noted for this study. There is some
evidence that the regulatory focus effect on product decisions can be
influenced by involvement (Wang & Lee, 2006), although other stu-
dies report that “fit effects” are independent of mood and involve-
ment (Motyka, Puccinelli, Grewal, & Andrzejewski, 2014; Roy &
Ng, 2012). Nevertheless, both mood and involvement are controlled
for in Study 3.
Study 3 examines H3, H4, H5a, and H5b, while trying to lend further
support for H1 and H2. Once again, the same regulatory focus ma-
nipulation was used as in Studies 1 and 2. However, this time around,
we manipulated arousal using music (high arousal vs. low arousal
music). Prior literature show that music has both arousal and valence
properties and it affects consumer behavior (Kim et al., 2010;
Thompson, Schellenberg, & Husain, 2001). Impacts of music have
been evidenced in the practical contexts also. For example, Milliman
(1986) demonstrated that low (vs. high) arousal music led to higher
payments in a retail and beverage outlet. Based on the findings from
Study 2, we also dropped the control condition. Finally, Study 3
controls for mood and involvement (Roy & Ng, 2012; Wang &
Lee, 2006).
7.1 | Pretest
As arousal‐inducing stimuli, two Bollywood music selections used by
Das and Hagtvedt (2016) were used for the arousal manipulation. To
confirm that these were appropriate, these were tested on a sample
that did not participate in the main study (n = 40, females = 50%;
Mage = 21.26). “Subha Hone Na De” from the Bollywood movie Desi
Boyz was selected as the high arousal music and “Jhuki Jhuki Si Na-
zar” performed by Jagjit Singh was selected as the low arousal music.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results revealed an expected main
effect on arousal levels (MHA = 6.85 vs. MLA = 3.25, F[1, 38] = 48.14;
p < .001), but not on valence (M = 5.20 vs. M = 5.10, F[1, 38] = 0.08;
p = .78). Thus, the arousal manipulation (high vs. low) pretest for
music was successful.
7.2 | Participants and design
A total of 180 participants (45% females; Mage = 22.8 years) from a
large university participated in Study 3. Subjects were randomly al-
located to a 2 (regulatory focus: promotion vs. prevention) × 2
(arousal‐inducing stimuli: high arousal vs. low arousal music)
between‐subjects design. A pen of ~$0.75 was given to each parti-
cipant to encourage participation.

T A B L E 2 DVs as a function of regulatory

Promotion focus Prevention focus
focus and arousal‐inducing stimuli
Low High Low High
DV arousal arousal Control arousal arousal Control

Satisfaction 3.0 (0.73) 6.1 (0.91) 3.16 (1.2) 5.1 (1.33) 2.9 (1.47) 3.18 (1.12)

Referral 2.68 (1.04) 5.68 (1.2) 2.88 (1.1) 4.62 (1.67) 2.8 (0.88) 2.94 (1.09)

Loyalty 2.8 (1.01) 5.08 (1.39) 2.94 (1.28) 4.02 (1.61) 2.56 (1.19) 2.78 (1.25)

Note: Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.

Abbreviation: DV, dependent variable.
8 |
On arrival in the laboratory, participants were informed that
they were taking part in several ostensibly unrelated studies. The
“first study” comprised the regulatory focus manipulation used in
Studies 1 and 2. Following the regulatory focus manipulation, parti-
cipants were told to complete an unrelated study about a shopping
incident. Participants were asked to imagine themselves shopping for
clothing in a fictitious shop “ABC” located inside a shopping mall. The
scenario described a situation in which the shopper requested for
help to access a product on the shelf, which she/he could not reach.
Despite acknowledging the customer's request for help, the sales-
person chose to ignore the customer and continued talking to their
colleague (see Appendix; scenario adapted from Madzharov
et al., 2015). Then, participants' perceptions regarding the sales-
person's impolite behavior were elicited by asking two questions,
“The salesperson was respectful” and “The salesperson was re-
sponsive” (1 = strongly disagree and 9 = strongly agree). They then
reported both their arousal and valence levels using the Affect Grid
(Russel et al., 1989).
After this, subjects were introduced to the music manipulation.
Subjects were asked to rate different types of music as part of a
separate study. After listening to the music relevant to their treat-
ment condition (high vs. low arousal music), participants were again
asked to complete the Affect Grid. Then, the subjects were asked to
think back to shopping experience scenario and answer the key DVs,
satisfaction, loyalty, and referral. Finally, the control variables “mood”
and “involvement” were measured using two single items “Currently,
I am in a good mood”, and “I am interested in clothing” using the
endpoints 1 = “strongly disagree” and 9 = “strongly agree” (Bergkvist
& Rossiter, 2007; Gabbott, Tsarenko, & Mok, 2011).
7.3 | Manipulation checks
Similar to the previous studies, we ran manipulation checks for
arousal, valence, and regulatory focus using MANOVA. Regulatory
focus and arousal‐inducing stimuli served as the independent vari-
ables. As expected, music had a significant effect on arousal
(Mhigh = 5.93, vs Mlow = 5.2, F[1, 176] = 26.69; p < .01), but not on
valence (p > .05). Similarly, the manipulation of regulatory focus also
produced the expected differences between different types of reg-
ulatory focus (Mprom = 3.74 vs. Mprev = 2.44, F [1, 176] = 104.24;
p < .01). To check whether subjects perceived the salesperson as
impolite, a one‐sample t‐test was performed with respect to the scale
Promotion Prevention
Regulatory focus
DV/arousal Low arousal High arousal Low arousal
Satisfaction 3.36 (1.21) 6.22 (0.97) 5.24 (1.64)
Loyalty 3.24 (1.32) 5.87 (1.54) 4.6 (1.27)
Referral 2.89 (0.86) 5.64 (1.48) 4.38 (1.86)
Note: Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.
Abbreviation: DV, dependent variable.
DAS ET AL.
midpoint. Results showed that subjects considered the salesperson to
be disrespectful (M = 2.15, t[179] = −44.7; p < 0.001) and non-
responsive (M = 3.84, t[179] = −8.72; p < .001).
To assess the relevance of the control variables mood and in-
volvement, a 2 (regulatory focus) × 2 (arousal manipulation) MAN-
OVA was used. Regulatory focus did not have a significant effect on
mood (F[1, 176] = 0.61; p = .43) or involvement (F[1, 176] = 0.00;
p = 1.0). Similarly, arousal did not have a significant influence on
mood (F[1, 176] = 1.31; p = .25) or involvement (F[1, 176] = 0.87;
p = .35). Finally, the interaction between regulatory focus and arousal
condition did not influence mood (F[1, 176] = 0.05; p = .82) or in-
volvement (F[1, 176] = 0.00; p = 1.0). Given these findings, the control
variables were dropped from further analyses.
7.4 | Hypotheses tests
A MANOVA was used to test H1 and H2. Findings supported a sig-
nificant interaction between regulatory focus and the arousal‐
inducing music on the key DVs: satisfaction (F[1, 176] = 129.46;
p < .001), loyalty (F[1, 176] = 79.95; p < .001), and referral (F[1,
176] = 84.11; p < .001). Follow‐up contrast analyses supported the
hypotheses for satisfaction (Mprom_high = 6.22 vs. Mprom_low = 3.36, t
[176] = 9.56; p < .001; Mprev_low = 5.24 vs. Mprev_high = 3.29, t
[176] = −6.53; p < .001), loyalty (Mprom_high = 5.87 vs. Mprom_low = 3.24,
t[176] = 8.77; p < .001; Mprev_low = 4.60 vs. Mprev_high = 3.44, t
[176] = −3.87; p < .001), and referral (Mprom_high = 5.64 vs. Mprom_-
low = 2.89, t[176] = 8.37; p < .001; Mprev_low = 4.38 vs. Mprev_high = 2.87,
t[176] = −4.59; p < .001). These results provide support for H1 and
H2. Cell means appear in Table 3. The interaction effects for sa-
tisfaction and loyalty are represented in Figures 1 and 2.
Recall that participant's level of valence and arousal was mea-
sured twice, immediately after experiencing the service failure (time
= t 1) and then after exposure to the arousal manipulation (time = t 2).
H3 and H4 predicted a change in valence and arousal levels on ex-
posure to the arousal‐inducing stimuli. Based on this, we calculated
the change in “valence” and “arousal” scores pre‐exposure versus
postexposure to the music. We subjected this “arousal change” and
“valence change” to a between‐subjects ANOVA. Regulatory focus
and arousal condition served as the independent variables.
First, with “valence change” as the DV, we obtained a significant
two‐way interaction (F[1, 176] = 6.56; p < .05). Mean comparison with
contrast analyses showed that on exposure to high (vs. low) arousal
T A B L E 3 DVs as a function of regulatory
focus and arousal‐inducing stimuli
High arousal
3.29 (1.73)
3.44 (1.52)
2.87 (1.83)
DAS ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 Satisfaction as a function of regulatory focus and
arousal‐inducing stimuli [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
stimulus after the service failure, promotion‐focused subjects chan-
ged their affective state to a relatively more positive level; however,
this change was not significant across different types of stimuli
(Mvalence change_high = 1.22 vs. Mvalence change_low = 1.07, t(176) = 0.60;
p > .05). However, as predicted, in terms of direction, high arousal (vs.
low arousal) stimulus resulted in a higher positive (1.22 being higher
than 1.07) change in affect valence for promotion focus. Similarly, for
prevention‐focused people, we found that exposure to low (vs. high)
arousal stimulus following service failure, resulted in significantly
higher change in valence level (Mvalence change_low = 2.29 vs. Mvalence
change_high = 1.51, t(176) = −3.02; p < .01). In other words, as predicted,
exposure to low (vs. high) arousal music after a service failure seems
to help prevention‐focused people move toward a relatively more
positive affect state. Based on these findings, H4a is supported, while
H3a is not.
A two‐way ANOVA was then run with “arousal change” as the
DV. Once again, the two‐way interaction for this DV was significant
(F[1, 176] = 9.76; p < .01). On exposure to high‐arousal music,
promotion‐focused people retained their preferred high arousal
state, although as discussed previously, moving toward a more po-
sitive affect level. Interestingly, promotion‐focused people lowered
their arousal level when exposed to low (vs high arousal) music
(Marousal change_high = 0.00 vs. Marousal change_low = −3.2, t(176) = 11.36;
p < .01). Similarly, for prevention‐focused people, exposure to low (vs.
high) arousal music, resulted in lower arousal level (Marousal change_-
high = −0.84 vs. Marousal change_low = −2.80, t(176) = 6.94; p < .01). Once
again, based on the findings, only H4b is supported. To sum up,
findings for valence and arousal provide support for prevention‐
focused people (i.e., H4a and H4b) only.
Our findings indicate that following a high‐arousal negative ex-
perience arising from service failure, prevention‐focused individuals
moved toward a calmer state, especially when exposed to low (vs.
high) arousal music. However, for individuals that normally prefer a
more excited state (a natural tendency for promotion‐focused in-
dividuals), when the high arousal level stems from a service failure
experience, soothing music appears to help them calm down from the
aversive event. Prior research that has concluded that promotion‐
oriented individuals generally prefer more excited arousal states
| 9
F I G U R E 2 Loyalty as a function of regulatory focus and arousal‐
inducing stimuli [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
have focused on when desired ideal states are achieved (Baas
et al., 2008; Higgins, 1997, 1998), not when such individuals are
reacting to undesirable situations. In retrospect, calming down fol-
lowing such events (a service failure) seems advantageous to both
consumer and retailer, which could explain the lack of support
for H3.
7.5 | Mediation analysis
To test H5a and H5b, a moderated mediation analysis was executed
(Hayes, 2013). Regulatory focus served as the independent variable
(X), while manipulated arousal (the different musical pieces) was the
moderator (W). The changes in reported arousal (M1) and valence
(M2) states were included as possible mediators. The DVs were sa-
tisfaction, loyalty, and referral.
Following Hayes (2013), a PROCESS model 7 with 5,000 boot-
strapped samples was run to test three different models for sa-
tisfaction, loyalty, and referral. The two‐way interaction between
regulatory focus and the arousal manipulation had a significant in-
fluence on the mediators “arousal change” (p < .01) and “valence
change” (p < .05) for all the three DVs, that is, “satisfaction,” “loyalty,”
and “referrals.” The indirect effects of the independent variable
(through both the mediators) for different levels of the moderator
are significant for “satisfaction” (arousal change: 95% confidence
interval [CI] = 0.14–0.43; and valence change: 95% CI = 0.04–0.47).
However, for the DV “loyalty,” only arousal change mediates the
effect for different levels of the moderator (95% CI = 0.09–0.36),
while valence change does not (95% CI = −0.14 to 0.27). Finally, for
the DV “referrals,” both the mediators mediate the effect (arousal
change: 95% CI = 0.13–0.42; and valence change: 95%
CI = 0.02–0.46) for different levels of the moderator. Based on the
findings, it seems the joint effect of regulatory focus and the arousal
manipulation had an influence on satisfaction and referrals, through
both mediators, that is, arousal and valence change. The effect on
loyalty was, however, only mediated through change in arousal. Thus,
H5a and H5b are fully supported for “satisfaction” and “referrals,”
and partially supported for “loyalty.”
10 | DAS
7.6 | Discussion
Study 3 examined a service failure scenario involving a rude sales-
person. Findings provide further support for H1 and H2, that dif-
ferent arousal levels induced by incidental stimuli—in this case, two
musical pieces—that match the natural arousal levels corresponding
to the different regulatory foci positively affect satisfaction and be-
havioral intentions. This study also lends support for H4a and H4b,
and H5a and H5b. Importantly, Study 3 delved into the underlying
processes that help rectify the negative impact of service failure.
When promotion (prevention)‐focused individuals were exposed to
high (low) arousal‐inducing music, they moved toward a more posi-
tive valence state. Furthermore, the change in arousal and valence
mediated the effect of regulatory match or fit on the three DVs.
These effects were independent of mood and involvement.
8 | G E N E RA L D I S C U S S IO N
Across three experiments, we used different retail service failure
scenarios and engaged different ways to manipulate arousal readily
available to retailers, namely through images, colors, and music.
Findings consistently show that a fit or match between regulatory
focus and arousal level can mitigate negative reactions to service
failures. Specifically, when promotion (prevention)‐focused in-
dividuals are exposed to high (low) incidental arousal‐inducing sti-
muli, they experience fit; as a result, they move toward a level of
arousal that more naturally matches their regulatory orientation. The
subsequent changes in arousal are also accompanied with positively
valenced affect state. This in turn helps to ameliorate the adverse
impact of the service failure. Our findings show that the effect of fit
on consumers' satisfaction, loyalty, and referral was mediated by the
change in arousal and valence levels. Demonstrating the unique role
that fitting one's regulatory focus to arousal‐inducing stimuli to
dampen the adverse reactions to a service failure has not been tested
in the literature before.
The findings therefore extend the current state of knowledge
several ways. As argued in Section 1, the findings help address an issue
raised by scholars who recommend more inquiries to understand the
impact of arousal regulation on shopping behaviors, including unearth-
ing boundary conditions to this effect; providing causal evidence for the
role of arousal; and finally studying different shopping contexts, in this
case, undesirable service failure situations. The current study therefore
addresses these gaps and extends both regulatory focus and arousal‐
related literatures. Second, the role of arousal‐inducing stimuli as a
moderator to regulatory focus effects extends the fit literature as there
is no earlier precedence that has proposed and tested congruency be-
tween one's regulatory motivation and different levels of arousal. We
also contribute to the limited literature about the role of fit to counter
negative incidences and show that there are strategies available in
addition to message framing (Roy & Chatterjee, 2011). Specifically, we
show that matching regulatory focus to arousal level can help negate
the adverse impact of a service failure on consumer behaviors without
ET AL.
using other acknowledged strategies like offering a matching apology
message. The fit mechanism proposed and tested shows that this can be
used independent of existing options like offering compensation or
blaming suppliers. Further, while extant literature shows that the effect
of fit induces a “feeling right” experience, this study effort shows for the
first time that changes in both valence and arousal levels play a med-
iating roll between service failure and consumer behaviors.
The present study also contributes to the arousal literature. Our
findings contribute to a limited body of literature that has explored
the role of arousal and motivation on shopping behavior (e.g.,
Kaltcheva & Weitz, 2006). Our results show that depending on one's
motivational state (regulatory focus), there are differential pre-
ferences for high versus low arousal stimuli. Further, the current
study also verifies that aversive arousal states can be mitigated by
inducing fit in response to a negative event, and thus extends the
study by Raju and Unnava (2006). These findings also show that fit
can induce changes in arousal levels and move valence toward a
more positive state, which adds to the existing literature about the
influence of affective experiences on shopping behaviors.
9 | MANA GE RIAL IMPL IC ATION S
The findings have managerial implications. Our findings regarding
natural preferences for low versus high arousal stimuli depending on
one's regulatory orientation can be incorporated into retail atmo-
spherics, especially in the context of service failure. Some retailers
can reasonably estimate the regulatory focus orientation from their
offerings; for example, a designer garment shop or luxury car
showroom are likely to induce a promotion focus, while a school
uniform shop or hardware store are more likely to induce a pre-
vention focus. In some instances, music/color/images within areas of
the store can be varied to match customers' regulatory focus just in
the event there may be a service failure. For example, a car dealer
can play high arousal music for customers in the showroom where
customers are likely to be in a promotion‐focused mindset, whereas
the servicing area of car dealer would likely benefit from low arousal
music. Similarly, if an online retailer chose to deliver a stock out
message, a background color (e.g., blue for prevention and red for
promotion) may have a more beneficial effect on consumers and
negate some of the adverse impact from the service failure. Retailers
may even combine an appropriate color with matching music for their
atmospherics as findings from our study show that different types of
stimuli (e.g., images, color, and music) can independently negate ad-
verse impact from service failure.
10 | LIMITATIONS AND FUT URE
RES EA RC H
The current study is not without limitations. Given that service fail-
ure literature often considers “trust” as a key construct, future work
may study the impact of key variables studied in this study on “trust.”
DAS ET AL.
Future studies can also explore the fit effect on different DVs like
brand switching, impact on brand image and market share after a
service failure. Further, we measured our key DVs (i.e, satisfaction,
loyalty, and referral), only after exposure to the service failure sce-
nario. This was based on the reason that the company studied in our
work, for example, “ABC” retailer is fictitious. Subjects, therefore, are
unlikely to exhibit any pre‐existing satisfaction, loyalty, or referral
motivation for this fictitious company. Future studies may therefore
consider real‐life companies from the marketplace to replicate the
current findings. Future studies may even consider measuring pre‐
existing levels of satisfaction, loyalty followed by a second round of
measure after exposure to the service failure scenario. This should
help illuminate the extent of loss in satisfaction, loyalty, and
referral—if any—due to the service failure. In the current study,
controlled experiments were used to test the hypotheses. It would
therefore be appropriate to verify and extend our findings by con-
ducting field studies. Future studies can also extend the current
findings by studying different arousal manipulations, for example,
picture and music together; or consider pitching them against each
other to see if one manipulation (e.g., music) is more effective than
the other (e.g., image). Finally, studies can explore service failure
contexts that vary in intensity. These shortcomings aside, by showing
that matching one's regulatory focus to incidental arousal‐inducing
stimuli mitigates the initial adverse reactions to service failures has
extended our understanding of regulatory focus, affect and service
failure literatures.
OR CID
Gopal Das http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1869-9820
Rajat Roy http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7515-3237
REFERENC ES
Anderson, E. T., Fitzsimons, G. J., & Simester, D. (2006). Measuring and
mitigating the costs of stockouts. Management Science, 52(11),
1751–1763.
Andrade, E. B. (2005). Behavioural consequences of affect: Combining
evaluative and regulatory mechanisms. Journal of Consumer Research,
32(3), 355–362.
Andreassen, T. W. (2000). Antecedents to satisfaction with service
recovery. European Journal of Marketing, 34(1/2), 156–175.
Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2003). Locomotion, assessment, and regulatory
fit: Value transfer from “How” to “What”. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 39(5), 525–530.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta‐analysis of
25 years of mood‐creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or
regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 779–806.
Babin, B. J., & Babin, L. (2001). Seeking something different? A model of
schema typicality, consumer affect, purchase intentions and perceived
shopping value. Journal of Business Research, 54(2), 89–96.
Bagchi, R., & Cheema, A. (2013). The effect of red background color on
willingness‐to‐pay: The moderating role of selling mechanism. Journal
of Consumer Research, 39(5), 947–960.
Basso, K., & Pizzutti, C. (2016). Trust recovery following a double
deviation. Journal of Service Research, 20(January), 1–15.
Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple‐
item versus single‐item measures of the same constructs. Journal of
Marketing Research, 44(2), 175–184.
| 11
Bolton, L. E., & Mattila, A. S. (2015). How does corporate social
responsibility affect consumer response to service failure in
buyer–seller relationships? Journal of Retailing, 91(1), 140–153.
Breugelmans, E., Campo, K., & Gijsbrechts, E. (2006). Opportunities for
active stock‐out management in online stores: The impact of the
stock‐out policy on online stock‐out reactions. Journal of Retailing,
82(3), 215–228.
Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and
persuasion: Transfer from “Feeling Right”. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 86(3), 388–404.
Chatterjee, S., Roy, R., & Malshe, A. V. (2011). The role of regulatory fit on
the attraction effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(4), 473–481.
Chernev, A. (2004). Goal‐attribute compatibility in consumer choice.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1), 141–150.
Chowdhury, R. M. M. I., Douglas Olsen, G., & Pracejus, J. W. (2008).
Affective responses to images in print advertising: Affect integration
in a simultaneous presentation context. Journal of Advertising, 37(3),
7–18.
Das, G. (2016). Understanding the role of regulatory focus in e‐tailing
activities. Journal of Services Marketing, 30(2), 212–222.
Das, G., & Hagtvedt, H. (2016). Consumer responses to combined arousal‐
inducing stimuli. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(1),
213–215.
Di Muro, F., & Murray, K. B. (2012). An arousal regulation explanation of
mood effects on consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3),
574–584.
Drolet, A. L., & Morrison, D. G. (2001). Do we really need multiple‐item
measures in service research? Journal of Service Research, 3(3),
196–204.
Eroglu, S. A., Machleit, K. A., & Davis, L. M. (2003). Empirical testing of a
model of online store atmospherics and shopper responses. Psychology
& Marketing, 20(2), 139–150.
Fedorikhin, A., & Patrick, V. M. (2010). Positive mood and resistance to
temptation: The interfering influence of elevated arousal. Journal of
Consumer Research, 37(4), 698–711.
Fiore, A. M., Jin, H. J., & Kim, J. (2005). For fun and profit: Hedonic value
from image interactivity and responses toward an online store.
Psychology & Marketing, 22(8), 669–694.
Fitzsimons, G. J. (2000). Consumer response to stockouts. Journal of
Consumer Research, 27(2), 249–266.
Gaur, V., & Park, Y. H. (2007). Asymmetric consumer learning and
inventory competition. Management Science, 53(2), 227–240.
Gabbott, M., Tsarenko, Y., & Mok, W. H. (2011). Emotional intelligence as
a moderator of coping strategies and service outcomes in
circumstances of service failure. Journal of Service Research, 14(2),
234–248.
Gorn, G. J., Chattopadhyay, A., Yi, T., & Dahl, D. W. (1997). Effects of color
as an executional cue in advertising: They're in the shade. Management
Science, 43(10), 1387–1400.
Gorn, G., Pham, M. T., & Sin, L. Y. (2001). When arousal influences ad
evaluation and valence does not (and vice versa). Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 11(1), 43–55.
Gross, M. (1998). The imposed query: Implications for library
service evaluation. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 37(April),
290–299.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
process analysis: A regression‐based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist,
52(12), 1280–1300.
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a
motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
30(December), 1–46.
Higgins, E. T. (2002). How self‐regulation creates distinct values: The case
of promotion and prevention decision making. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 12(3), 177–191.
12 | DAS
Higgins, E. T., Idson, L. C., Freitas, A. L., Spiegel, S., & Molden, D. C. (2003).
Transfer of value from fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
84(6), 1140–1153.
Holbrook, M. B., & Gardner, M. P. (1993). An approach to investigating the
emotional determinants of consumption durations: Why do people
consume what they consume for as long as they consume it? Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 2(2), 123–142.
Kaltcheva, V., & Weitz, B. A. (2006). The moderating influence of motivational
orientation on the relationship between shopping environment arousal
and behaviour. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 107–118.
Keller, P. A. (2006). Regulatory focus and efficacy of health messages.
Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 109–114.
Kim, M., & Lennon, S. J. (2011). Consumer response to online apparel
stockouts. Psychology & Marketing, 28(2), 115–144.
Kim, H., Park, K., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Will this trip really be exciting?
The role of incidental emotions in product evaluation. Journal of
Consumer Research, 36(6), 983–991.
Kueller, R., & Mikellides, B. (1993). Simulated studies of color, arousal, and
comfort, Environmental simulation (pp. 163–190). Boston, MA: Springer.
Kuppens, P., Champagne, D., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2012). The dynamic
interplay between appraisal and core affect in daily life. Frontiers in
Psychology, 3(October), 380.
Kuppens, P., Tuerlinckx, F., Russell, J. A., & Barrett, L. F. (2013). The
relation between valence and arousal in subjective experience.
Psychological Bulletin, 139(4), 917–940.
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1999). International affective
picture system (IAPS): Instruction manual and affective ratings.
Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, The Center for Research in
Psychophysiology.
Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The
influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 205–218.
Madzharov, A. V., Block, L. G., & Morrin, M. (2015). The cool scent of
power: Effects of ambient scent on consumer preferences and choice
behaviour. Journal of Marketing, 79(1), 83–96.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental
psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Menon, S., & Kahn, B. (2002). Cross‐category effects of induced arousal
and pleasure on the internet shopping experience. Journal of Retailing,
78(1), 31–40.
Milliman, R. E. (1986). The influence of background music on the behavior
of restaurant patrons. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 286–289.
Motyka, S., Puccinelli, N., Grewal, D., & Andrzejewski, S. (2014). A meta‐
analysis of affect induction techniques: How do induction
characteristics, context, and measurement factors influence the
strength of affect induced? LA‐ Latin American Advances in Consumer
Research, 3, 71–72.
Noseworthy, T. J., Di Muro, F., & Murray, K. B. (2014). The role of arousal
in congruity‐based product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research,
41(4), 1108–1126.
Pham, M. T., & Avnet, T. (2004). Ideals and oughts and the reliance on
affect versus substance in persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research,
30(4), 503–518.
ET AL.
Pierro, A., Giacomantonio, M., Pica, G., Mannetti, L., Kruglanski, A. W., &
Higgins, E. T. (2013). When comparative ads are more effective: Fit
with audience's regulatory mode. Journal of Economic Psychology,
38(October), 90–103.
Raghunathan, R., Pham, M. T., & Corfman, K. P. (2006). Informational
properties of anxiety and sadness, and displaced coping. Journal of
Consumer Research, 32(4), 596–601.
Raju, S., & Unnava, H. R. (2006). The role of arousal in commitment: An
explanation for the number of counterarguments. Journal of Consumer
Research, 33(2), 173–178.
Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard
Business Review, 81(12), 46–55.
Rothman, A. J., Bartels, R. D., Wlaschin, J., & Salovey, P. (2006). The
strategic use of gain‐and loss‐framed messages to promote healthy
behaviour: How theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication,
56(s1), S202–S220.
Roy, R., & Chatterjee, S. (2011). The role of regulatory fit on the
inclination to forgive or seek revenge against sellers following a
product failure in the marketplace. Advances in Consumer Research, 39,
438.
Roy, R., & Ng, S. (2012). Regulatory focus and preference reversal
between hedonic and utilitarian consumption. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, 11(1), 81–88.
Russel, J. A., Weiss, A., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (1989). Affect grid: A single‐
item scale of pleasure and arousal. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57(3), 493–502.
Schaefers, T., & Schamari, J. (2016). Service recovery via social media: The
social influence effects of virtual presence. Journal of Service Research,
19(2), 192–208.
Schary, P. B., & Christopher, M. (1979). Anatomy of a stock‐out. Journal of
Retailing, 55(2), 59–70.
Scholer, A. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2013). Dodging monsters and dancing with
dreams: Success and failure at different levels of approach and
avoidance. Emotion Review, 5(3), 254–258.
Smith, A. K., & Bolton, R. N. (2002). The effect of customers' emotional
responses to service failures on their recovery effort evaluations and
satisfaction judgments. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
30(1), 5–23.
Thompson, W. F., Schellenberg, E. G., & Husain, G. (2001). Arousal, mood,
and the Mozart effect. Psychological Science, 12(3), 248–251.
Valdez, P., & Mehrabian, A. (1994). Effects of color on emotions. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 123(4), 394–409.
Wang, J., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). The role of regulatory focus in preference
construction. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 28–38.
How to cite this article: Das G, Roy R, Spence MT. The
mitigating effect of matching regulatory focus with arousal‐
inducing stimuli in service failure situations. Psychology &
Marketing. 2020;1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21390
DAS ET AL.
AP PEN D IX
High and low arousal images used as background images to the stock
out message in Study 1
Low arousal image
Scenario presented to participants in Study 3
Imagine that you are shopping for an item of clothing in the
“ABC” shop inside a mall. You see something on the shelf behind
the counter that you cannot reach on your own. You would like to
inspect the item and need help from a salesperson. You requested
| 13
High arousal image
help from a salesperson near you who was busy talking to a
colleague. The salesperson acknowledges your request but con-
tinues to carry on with his personal conversation. This goes on for
some time. You say “excuse me” to get his attention, but he
continues to ignore you.